Let us suppose I own "United Boxed Lunch Company" and I win a contract to supply microgravity meals to the ISS. Just for fun I occasionally have a camera on in the Sandwich Testing Room, to placate certain anoraks who are really into sandwichspotting. Once in awhile, a large container of mustard is spilled. We turn the camera off, clean up and when we are ready, we get back to work. We are periodically checked by health inspectors as well as NASA's own contract management personnel to make certain that our boxed lunches fall within guidelines. But certain parts of the population are upset. "That sandwich belongs to the United States of America! We want to know where the mustard fell, what solvents were used to clean it, and the minutes of the meeting for the Commitee to Prevent Future Mustard Spills. This is a government program and therefore these boxed lunches and the means to go about making them, are just as public as the inner workings of a Navy galley. Now the United Boxed Lunch Company has other customers, and it has a reputation to protect. It has done its job, and shareholders do not want it to be the sourse of blooper reels on television and "Fail blogs" on streaming media. Likewise they do not want to be part of a congressional hearing on Condiment Contamination when the congressman from the next state over, whose Standard Ham and Cheese did not win the contract, has a pork flavoured ax to grind. What to do, what to do. (edited to correct spelling)
There are good arguments about withholding the full video, both from a business perspective and from a general public image perspective. Though, the argument that these companies should withhold any bad information because there are critical congress people should be a disconcerting argument. If you like or hate Congress it does have a job to do. It has a responsibility to make sure tax dollars are being spent effectively and wisely. Like I said you can agree or disagree that they are doing a good job if it. However that is their job and they can't do it if they are kept in the dark. No company or project using tax money should be beyond review of Congress, no matter what they make, how much people like them, or how bad a job Congress is doing.
A common reaction to the Dreamchaser controversy is "Who cares? It's their work., and they can release what they want". However, least 3 groups of people care:(a) Those who want to know what actually happened. Did is simply spin around but remain right-side up? If so, the damage should be confined to the bottom surface. If it flipped, or rolled, or bounced, the damage could be a lot worse. Obviously this affects schedule, odds ot this machine flying again, etc., all things folks on this forum care about very much.(b) Those who are concerned about honesty in communication. Look at the current NSA flap, for example, where they said to congress that they did not "collect" information information on Americans not under suspicion, using a patently bogus meaning of the word collect precisely to avoid the consequences of their actions. Words matter - compare your reaction if your son or daughter calls and says "I skidded off the road" vs. "I crashed the car".(c) Those who are interested in corporate crisis management. There at lots of issues in play here. If the video does indeed show a skid, but not a flip, would they have been better off showing it? Is is better to acknowledge a smaller error to avoid speculation about a greater problem? What about the court of public opinion vs. wording of the contract? Etc....
It's a different environment now Ed. This is not NASA where the general public owns the information. This is corporate and the rules are different. The corporations own the information, not the public. That’s in all the contracts those companies signed with NASA and NASA agreed to guard all corporate proprietary information.
Is video of a crash-landing "corporate proprietary information"? If so, how is video of a not-crash-landing non-proprietary?
"Commercial!", "intellectual property!", "ITAR", etc, is a response, but NASA pays the bills and writes the contract. Those contract rules can require any level of public disclosure that NASA desires, within reason.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/31/2013 03:55 pmIs video of a crash-landing "corporate proprietary information"? If so, how is video of a not-crash-landing non-proprietary?Yes, simply because they say so for both cases.
"Because they say so" ... that's my problem right there when it comes to something like a basic overview video. What corporate secrets are revealed in a long shot when the airframe touches the runway that weren't revealed an instant before?
"Because they say so" ... that's my problem right there when it comes to something like a basic overview video. What corporate secrets are revealed in a long shot when the airframe touches the runway that weren't revealed an instant before? - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Jim on 10/31/2013 04:08 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 10/31/2013 03:55 pmIs video of a crash-landing "corporate proprietary information"? If so, how is video of a not-crash-landing non-proprietary?Yes, simply because they say so for both cases. "Because they say so" ... that's my problem right there when it comes to something like a basic overview video. What corporate secrets are revealed in a long shot when the airframe touches the runway that weren't revealed an instant before? - Ed Kyle
It doesn't have to be corporate secrets. Propriety just means the company owns the information. If they don't want to release the crash because they feel the crash portion might reflect poorly on them, then it is their call or because they say so. It isn't their problem that you have one with their policy.
Quote from: Jim on 10/31/2013 04:59 pmIt doesn't have to be corporate secrets. Propriety just means the company owns the information. If they don't want to release the crash because they feel the crash portion might reflect poorly on them, then it is their call or because they say so. It isn't their problem that you have one with their policy.Fair enough, but I will continue to believe that it reflects more poorly on them to withhold the crash video than it would to share the crash video. (My underlining above.) - Ed Kyle
I think some of us are just frustrated and miss the days when our nation had a real space program,
one that people actually cared about!
Quote from: vt_hokie on 10/31/2013 05:33 pmI think some of us are just frustrated and miss the days when our nation had a real space program,We still have one. National or US space program does not equate to a Government or NASA space program
OK so it sounds like this thread may have already reached the conclusion? Is anyone's mind changeable?
Quote from: Lar on 10/31/2013 06:04 pmOK so it sounds like this thread may have already reached the conclusion? Is anyone's mind changeable?I accept that I am merely a spectator on the sidelines without any say regarding the rules of the game. With that said, wake me when our manned space program starts doing something exciting and groundbreaking again.
Reducing the cost of access to space so that more people can go to space is quite groundbreaking for me and the commercial crew program does that (as a first).
How many people would choose to support HSF or NASA or spaceflight exploration missions if all they ever got was a filtered story, aligned with the corporate vision?
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 10/31/2013 06:20 pmReducing the cost of access to space so that more people can go to space is quite groundbreaking for me and the commercial crew program does that (as a first).But if we don't get to see these groundbreaking efforts (ooh, bad phrase given Dreamchaser's landing), it is hard to get excited about them. We are a very visual species. And this ties in to the comments made by Ed and Chuck. I wonder: how many people would choose a career in aerospace if they had not seen (and presumably been inspired by) the early successes (and failures) of the space program(s)? How many people would choose to support HSF or NASA or spaceflight exploration missions if all they ever got was a filtered story, aligned with the corporate vision?
Quote from: vt_hokie on 10/31/2013 06:09 pmQuote from: Lar on 10/31/2013 06:04 pmOK so it sounds like this thread may have already reached the conclusion? Is anyone's mind changeable?I accept that I am merely a spectator on the sidelines without any say regarding the rules of the game. With that said, wake me when our manned space program starts doing something exciting and groundbreaking again.Reducing the cost of access to space so that more people can go to space is quite groundbreaking for me and the commercial crew program does that (as a first).
To be fair, you really have no way of knowing that.
Of public relations and filtered stories: My point is that when I watched Curiosity go through EDL, I was watching it live, in realtime (or just about)--indeed, I made sure the family schedule was cleared to share in the adventure. If the sky-crane hadn't worked, or the vehicle(s) had otherwise crashed, we'd have known right then.If corporation Z was running the show, they might have chosen to keep the EDL under wraps until safely on the martian surface, and then shared the good news.People get excited when they SEE things, especially LIVE (as they happen), not hear about them or see things after the fact. I'm a big space buff, but even for me it is hard to stay optimistic and engaged when there is nothing to see, even if things are happening...(and if it weren't for the internet, we wouldn't even be able to see things like F9v1.1 launch and other such progress, and even when we do, it is filtered/cut short/etc.)
Quote from: Go4TLI on 10/31/2013 07:50 pmTo be fair, you really have no way of knowing that. Sure, we know that. The cost per passenger is already set, from what I understand and that is lower than the Soyuz, IIRC. SpaceX plans to further reduce the cost with their reusable launchers. It wont happen over night, but it sure is more of a revolution of human spaceflight than anything NASA has done since... well that depends on how you look at it. To me it is more impressive than the shuttle, but that is a matter of personal priorities, I guess.
Wow. Seriously you guys. It doesn't take a genius to know that the press would love to repeat over and over the spaceplane crashing, talking about how commercial crew (and SNC in particular) must be a failure. And probably they'd get it screwed up and say it's NASA's fault, too. No reason to do it.
I understand fully a corporation's need for protecting proprietary information/hardware/etc. Indeed, I agree with it and accept that it is necessary.That does not preclude me from lamenting the lack of visibility such corporatization of space incurs. As well, expressing my belief that such secrecy may result in less people being engaged in space endeavours, the net result being less space endeavours (outside of comm sats, "spy" sats and the like).And per Chris's post--absolutely the press would jump all over a failure as a "waste of money" blah blah. Can you imagine if Curiosity had augered in? The press would have roasted NASA for the "loss/waste of BILLIONS $$". All the while, curious, engaged people would be wondering how to make the next one work...Double-edged to be sure, but I wanna' see what's going on!!
The results of pushing this endeavor into the realm of private enterprise will result in the very thing you want. Better costs, faster innovation, quicker to market resulting in the ubiquity of space transportation that no government constrained with bureaucracy and legacy costs can match
Maybe Orion lite aka CST-100 survives as well, though I don't really understand the point of it as long as Orion is also being funded.
Quote from: clongton on 10/31/2013 03:52 pmIt's a different environment now Ed. This is not NASA where the general public owns the information. This is corporate and the rules are different. The corporations own the information, not the public. That’s in all the contracts those companies signed with NASA and NASA agreed to guard all corporate proprietary information. Is video of a crash-landing "corporate proprietary information"? If so, how is video of a not-crash-landing non-proprietary? - Ed Kyle
... have wasted lots of other people's money, ... and waste billions of dollars.
And per Chris's post--absolutely the press would jump all over a failure as a "waste of money" blah blah. Can you imagine if Curiosity had augered in? The press would have roasted NASA for the "loss/waste of BILLIONS $$".
Quote from: LouScheffer on 10/31/2013 11:10 pm... have wasted lots of other people's money, ... and waste billions of dollars.Let's be clear about one thing.The Commercial Crew effort is largely self-funded by the individual companies. NASA has provided a boost in funding to help the process along because it wants to eventually buy and use their services. But the vast majority of the funding expended on Commercial Crew is corporate money, not taxpayer money. NASA did not fund these efforts. NASA has SUPPLEMENTED these efforts.
{snip}Showing the crash would generate more publicity than not showing the crash. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Quote from: PahTo on 10/31/2013 09:02 pmAnd per Chris's post--absolutely the press would jump all over a failure as a "waste of money" blah blah. Can you imagine if Curiosity had augered in? The press would have roasted NASA for the "loss/waste of BILLIONS $$". I'll suggest a different potential outcome. Showing the crash would generate more publicity than not showing the crash. There is no such thing as bad publicity. I believe that the vast majority of the public does not know or care that the DreamChaser project exists. If the crash were shown, public knowledge of the project's very existence would expand robustly. Coupling that video with a "we're going to fix it and fly again" would, in my opinion, increase, not decrease, public support for the program. - Ed Kyle
Here's a thought for those upset about corporate secrecy. The best way to find out what goes on behind the public face in an aerospace corporation...get a job with them. It will be difficult. It will probably take a while. But it's not impossible (speaking from experience). Then you will probably know all you could ever wanted to. Oh yeah, keep in mind that 99% of what you will learn you won't be able to discuss with anyone outside of your coworkers around you....
Showing the crash would generate more publicity than not showing the crash. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
I believe that the vast majority of the public does not know or care that the DreamChaser project exists.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/01/2013 12:02 amShowing the crash would generate more publicity than not showing the crash. There is no such thing as bad publicity. It's not that simple -- all publicity is "good" if one doesn't care about the nature of the resulting attention. For example, I'd guess Mark McGwire doesn't think all the attention from the congressional subpoena and his subsequent testimony was "good." The commercial crew companies weren't selected or funded based on their popularity and it's unlikely that will change in the near-term.
Too right Ed.Right now Dream Chaser is destined to end up dead. That's simply the direction congress is taking.They had nothing to lose yet they chose not to take a risk.No reward will come.
Quote from: psloss on 11/01/2013 12:22 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 11/01/2013 12:02 amShowing the crash would generate more publicity than not showing the crash. There is no such thing as bad publicity. It's not that simple -- all publicity is "good" if one doesn't care about the nature of the resulting attention. For example, I'd guess Mark McGwire doesn't think all the attention from the congressional subpoena and his subsequent testimony was "good." The commercial crew companies weren't selected or funded based on their popularity and it's unlikely that will change in the near-term.McGwire was famous *before* his bad publicity, but his example still applies in one sense because he has risen above his scandal, apologizing and reentering baseball as a highly effective hitting coach, first for the 2011 World Series winning St. Louis Cardinals and then for the increasingly-successful Dodgers of Los Angeles - both teams demonstrating powerful hitting during his tenure.
There are many better examples. Stravinsky and the Rite of Spring. Orson Wells' Devil's Night broadcast. Mae West's arrest. And so on.
Quote from: psloss on 11/01/2013 12:22 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 11/01/2013 12:02 amShowing the crash would generate more publicity than not showing the crash. There is no such thing as bad publicity. It's not that simple -- all publicity is "good" if one doesn't care about the nature of the resulting attention. For example, I'd guess Mark McGwire doesn't think all the attention from the congressional subpoena and his subsequent testimony was "good." The commercial crew companies weren't selected or funded based on their popularity and it's unlikely that will change in the near-term.McGwire was famous *before* his bad publicity, but his example still applies in one sense because he has risen above his scandal, apologizing and reentering baseball as a highly effective hitting coach, first for the 2011 World Series winning St. Louis Cardinals and then for the increasingly-successful Dodgers of Los Angeles - both teams demonstrating powerful hitting during his tenure. The point is that it is one thing to gain attention for failure, but that infamy can only be turned to advantage by achieving subsequent success. SNC should be fearless with its PR and confidently expect future success. There are many better examples. Stravinsky and the Rite of Spring. Orson Wells' Devil's Night broadcast. Mae West's arrest. And so on. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: spectre9 on 11/01/2013 03:05 pmToo right Ed.Right now Dream Chaser is destined to end up dead. That's simply the direction congress is taking.They had nothing to lose yet they chose not to take a risk.No reward will come.I'm curious. Are you upset because you wanted DC to succeed and you now think they blew it? Or are you on the record as having a different preference weighted toward Dragon or CST?
I'm saying they have the Sword of Damocles hanging over their precious tax payer funded jobs.This was a chance to give nightly news programs something they could show.You think Proton was on the world stage before it tumbled and went boom? That's not the way it works.Failures are valuable. You can't just stage a failure for the PR, it has to be genuine.In other words "you can't buy a failure"
If they succeed somehow with PR, it only helps them get better talent. They don't really have commercial customers for Dreamchaser, and if they did, showing a video of the vehicle crashing won't make them feel it's safer than, say, a capsule. (I say that with the assumption that the Dream Chaser crash would've been survivable.)
Quote from: rcoppola on 11/01/2013 03:19 pmQuote from: spectre9 on 11/01/2013 03:05 pmToo right Ed.Right now Dream Chaser is destined to end up dead. That's simply the direction congress is taking.They had nothing to lose yet they chose not to take a risk.No reward will come.I'm curious. Are you upset because you wanted DC to succeed and you now think they blew it? Or are you on the record as having a different preference weighted toward Dragon or CST?He's on the record as hating everyone and everything Which is a good thing, someone needs to keep the fan bois honest.
Politicians like Anthony Weiner say there is no such thing as bad press.
Quote from: RigelFive on 11/01/2013 04:58 pmPoliticians like Anthony Weiner say there is no such thing as bad press.Rimshot aside, whether he said that (or Tweeted it or something else) when he re-entered the public eye, the outcome of his most recent NY mayor candidacy suggests otherwise. Similar to Gary Hart in an earlier era.
Can you provide some TV-era and (especially) Internet-era examples?
Quote from: psloss on 11/01/2013 03:56 pmCan you provide some TV-era and (especially) Internet-era examples?Please don't make me talk about the sex tape era. I can give some rocket examples though. The first Ariane 5 failed shortly after launch. The first Ariane 5 ECA also failed, and in a bad way. Yet today Ariane 5 ECA sports the world's most reliable commercial bigsat GTO launch record.In 1957, Thor 101, the first Thor missile, blew up on its launch pad. The next three Thors also failed. At the end of that same year, Vanguard TV-3 exploded on its pad when attempting to launch the first U.S. satellite. In 1958, someone decided to try to combine Thor with Vanguard's second stage to create Thor-Able, which failed on its first attempt. In 1960, Thor-Able was updated to create Thor-Delta, which, of course, failed on its first attempt. Thor-Delta (Delta) went on to become one of the world's most successful, versatile, and oft-flown orbital launch vehicles. Thor was combined with Agena, a spy camera, and a film return capsule for Discoverer/Corona. The first twelve attempts failed, in every way possible. Corona finally succeeded. What it discovered made everyone forget the failures. There are other examples. Russia's R-7 failed often early on, and we know its unmatched record. The SpaceX story is still playing out, but could repeat the above examples since the first three Falcon 1 launches failed (and a fourth, initial Falcon 1 was destroyed on the ground without ever flying). - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/01/2013 12:02 amShowing the crash would generate more publicity than not showing the crash. There is no such thing as bad publicity.Very, very... incorrect. Other already noted that even if this is true, it applies to celebrites only and nowhere else. Various examples given here were about successes achieved despite faliures, not helped by them. So, nope. This claim is ludicrous.
asked “Can negative publicity actually have a positive effect?”. The authors found that while negative reviews of new books by well known authors hurt sales, bad reviews of books by unknown authors had the opposite effect.
SNC is a "new author" in this analogy.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/05/2013 04:43 pmSNC is a "new author" in this analogy. I don't see it that way.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 11/05/2013 05:10 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 11/05/2013 04:43 pmSNC is a "new author" in this analogy. I don't see it that way.Me either. This seems a particularly weak analogy to me.
It's also worth remembering that Dream Chaser is only one of a large number of products SNC is working on or currently sells.
I agree with Ed.Millions of people will only see Dream Chaser for the first time if the crash video was played on their nightly news.Now it's likely those people will never know about it and it will die quietly anyway.
"NASA blows another wad of cash on a failed space program!"
Right. Millions of people's first (and possibly only) exposure to Dream Chaser will be the "crash". All they will remember from the media report is that NASA paid them millions of dollars for a crashed baby shuttle. "NASA blows another wad of cash on a failed space program!"Very few of them will understand the wonderful flight and the achievement it represents. Only those of us that know better (and don't need to see the end of the video to understand the success) would see it for the success it was.
Only those of us that know better (and don't need to see the end of the video to understand the success) would see it for the success it was.
The problem, as I see it, is that the line has been moved, and for suspect reasons. The old NASA would not have been afraid to show what really happened to DreamChaser. It would show the failure, then move on and celebrate the subsequent hard-earned successes.
This isn't new. I dealt with this conops of PR for more than 20 years both as a contractor and as a govt employee. Spacehab followed this MO and NASA commercial launches have been that way for longer.
When you adopt an 80% solution mentality, you arbitrarily create something I've entitled as "The Anti-Specification". Although this document is never written and doesn't exist... if it did, it would be an informal/flexible document that tells you everything that you do not have to do.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/31/2013 03:29 pmThe problem, as I see it, is that the line has been moved, and for suspect reasons. The old NASA would not have been afraid to show what really happened to DreamChaser. It would show the failure, then move on and celebrate the subsequent hard-earned successes. Ed, your comment above is in direct conflict with Jim's comment below:Quote from: Jim on 10/31/2013 04:11 pmThis isn't new. I dealt with this conops of PR for more than 20 years both as a contractor and as a govt employee. Spacehab followed this MO and NASA commercial launches have been that way for longer.How do you reconcile both points of view? Is Jim wrong/exaggerating? Or have you just not been aware of where the line has always been? From reading this forum over the years, my impression is that the line has not moved, but rather that with the advent of multiple "NewSpace" companies in the last decade, the line has become a lot more obvious.// End of my two cents
You have to understand that when I raise this question about the Dream Chaser censoring, it isn't just about Dream Chaser. It is about every launch and landing and mission by every system and every provider in the future. If the majority is happy to object when someone calls for unleashing the horror of a video of an unmanned test vehicle flipping off a runway at speed, what other censoring will they demand when it comes to civil space exploration? That is simply not the U.S. space program that I want to support. If it is all subject to redaction, why bother?
Well, I can see there was a clear need for this thread. Summary over the first six pages: - It still is pretty much Ed's opinion versus those of the rest.[...]Carry on.
It's a different environment now Ed. This is not NASA where the general public owns the information. This is corporate and the rules are different. The corporations own the information, not the public. That’s in all the contracts those companies signed with NASA and NASA agreed to guard all corporate proprietary information. We have all been spoiled over the years by all the free flow of information from NASA but unlike NASA, all this information is proprietary and releasable only as the companies see fit. That goes even for those programs that are financed with public tax dollars so long as those dollars did not have public disclosure clauses attached. In the case of *ALL* the Commercial Crew applicants, there was no such clause. To the contrary, each company was promised that all its data would be held as proprietary. Each company has the legal right to not disclose anything it wants, regardless of funding source. Those are the rules.BTW I also grew up watching live coverage, beginning with the Vanguard failure. I also feel the information flow difference – very much. But it’s a different world now; time to adapt.
At least we have some idea what progress SNC is making. Other CCDev companies like Blue Origin and Excaliber Almaz haven't released much info at all, although I think they are still working on their own set of CCDev 2 milestones.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/31/2013 05:21 pmQuote from: Jim on 10/31/2013 04:59 pmIt doesn't have to be corporate secrets. Propriety just means the company owns the information. If they don't want to release the crash because they feel the crash portion might reflect poorly on them, then it is their call or because they say so. It isn't their problem that you have one with their policy.Fair enough, but I will continue to believe that it reflects more poorly on them to withhold the crash video than it would to share the crash video. (My underlining above.) - Ed KyleTo you, and probably many of us, it does. But to the less informed and/or more powerful, it may well be evidence that could be used against them. If the engineering and science communities were the only audience, the'd probably release it.
The difference is that now, for the first time, basic information is being withheld - a landing video censored - about a potential crew launch system.
But even when it comes to unmanned systems, didn't we see vivid video of the commercial - and even of the government - launch failures of the late 1990s?
We shouldn't be justifying any censorship (I also believe the word to be accurate*)..*to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Quote from: clongton on 10/31/2013 03:52 pmIt's a different environment now Ed. This is not NASA where the general public owns the information. This is corporate and the rules are different. The corporations own the information, not the public. That’s in all the contracts those companies signed with NASA and NASA agreed to guard all corporate proprietary information. We have all been spoiled over the years by all the free flow of information from NASA but unlike NASA, all this information is proprietary and releasable only as the companies see fit. That goes even for those programs that are financed with public tax dollars so long as those dollars did not have public disclosure clauses attached. In the case of *ALL* the Commercial Crew applicants, there was no such clause. To the contrary, each company was promised that all its data would be held as proprietary. Each company has the legal right to not disclose anything it wants, regardless of funding source. Those are the rules.BTW I also grew up watching live coverage, beginning with the Vanguard failure. I also feel the information flow difference – very much. But it’s a different world now; time to adapt.Nobody is arguing that they are violating the current law. What people have been arguing is that what they are doing is:1) Putting SNC's own interests above those of the country as a whole. This might be understandable, but it's also perfectly reasonable for people to complain about this and dislike them for it.
2) Might actually not even been in SNC's own best interests because it annoys some people and blows a chance to earn goodwill.
I may have missed the comparison, but SpaceX only released a photo of the CASSIOPE first stage taken moments before hitting the water and there wasn't this outpouring of demands to see the post-impact images. Same arguments can be made that the water impact was outside the actual flight requirements.
Quote from: eeergo on 11/07/2013 04:11 amWe shouldn't be justifying any censorship (I also believe the word to be accurate*)..*to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionableThe definition you linked to even says you're wrong.They're not suppressing anything. It's not censorship for me to refuse to tell you my credit card number. It's mine.
With the commercial crew program, NASA is just a client. It doesn't own the hardware or the IP. SNC gets government money just as any other company that sells to the government but NASA doesn't own any shares in SNC. SNC is allowed to disclose whatever they want.
It is the shared interest of all nations to act responsibly in space to help prevent mishaps, misperceptions, and mistrust .The United States considers the sustainability, stability, and free access to, and use of, space vital to its national interests .Space operations should be conducted in ways that emphasize openness and transparency to improve public awareness of the activities of government, and enable others to share in the benefits provided by the use of space .
Taken from this document.http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdfQuoteIt is the shared interest of all nations to act responsibly in space to help prevent mishaps, misperceptions, and mistrust .The United States considers the sustainability, stability, and free access to, and use of, space vital to its national interests .Space operations should be conducted in ways that emphasize openness and transparency to improve public awareness of the activities of government, and enable others to share in the benefits provided by the use of space .To me that's interesting. I've already stated my opinion and this seems to align with that.
I hope you intended your credit card example just to be a hyperbole, because obviously the release of a meaningless number (except for using it against you) in an unspecified context
Private companies are not bound by this kind of public policy at all, as long as they stay within the confines of what is legal.
Quote from: eeergo on 11/07/2013 07:13 pmI hope you intended your credit card example just to be a hyperbole, because obviously the release of a meaningless number (except for using it against you) in an unspecified contextThat's exactly how SNC sees the video of their landing gear not working.I don't know what you're having trouble understanding here, so I'll just repeat a little more briskly what has already been said:It's SNC's video, they don't have to show you any of it. Be happy you got to see anything at all.This is a courtesy and you're not being very gracious. They don't even have to provide video to NASA. We could be reading a redacted 30 page pdf instead.
I think I made it pretty clear in my long posts above that I understood very well what their contractual responsibilities are. That doesn't mean I agree with them, that I am happy with the amount of released information, and they way they did it, and that I wouldn't like that to be changed.
Not believing I'm *entitled* to, but just believing it's the right course of action.
It's not a mystery what happened after touchdown. I'm glad SNC isn't releasing the juicy disaster footage.It looks like some people are treating space travel as NASCAR: going mostly to watch the destruction...
Your agreement is neither requested nor required.Quote from: eeergoNot believing I'm *entitled* to, but just believing it's the right course of action.They disagree, and it's their video.
Well, since you appear to be pretty bright in other threads, I will assume you're deliberately refusing to discuss the more far-reaching arguments that me and others have brought forward in this thread about the ethical implications of this lack of openness.
Very well, but I see that as quite a simplistic reasoning that, fortunately, society as a whole doesn't appear to agree with, or otherwise private enterprises would be getting away with much more than they already do.
.. or I simply don't think there are any ethical implications. So far you've failed to present arguments for any.
[...]just releasing the bare minimum the contract stipulates, or more than that but contorted to suit corporate interests, is quite a selfish way to run high-profile programs such as these, more so when they are majoritarily funded by public money. We are talking about showing an honest, balanced summary of their progress, not their production secrets or technical specifications[...]Indeed, PR spin can backfire just as easily as it can lead to benefitial results for said company. [...]I really don't think this secretive, tergiversing behaviour from private enterprises should be seen as something positive, or even neutral, much less when they have large public investment.[...]see British Petroleum's situation in the Deepwater event - of course they would like to have kept everything in the dark, and of course they would have been within their right as long as they showed progress to responsible officials - but public pressure also counts). It's a matter of business ethics and openness towards the interested public, who also happens to be an investor.[...]Complacency on narrowing information releases, especially coming from interested public such as people in this forum, will only lead to less openness, not more.Capitalism doesn't come with hard commandments. You can just abide by the legalistic, there's-nothing-but-profits view (system I wouldn't want to live in) or see it as something with more hues.[…] I feel in many cases here, if it was NASA withholding information, the situation suddenly wouldn't be so acceptable. […]*quote author=edkyle99*The difference is that now, for the first time, basic information is being withheld - a landing video censored - about a potential crew launch system. [...] If the majority is happy to object when someone calls for unleashing the horror of a video of an unmanned test vehicle flipping off a runway at speed, what other censoring will they demand when it comes to civil space exploration? That is simply not the U.S. space program that I want to support. If it is all subject to redaction, why bother? *quote author=ChrisWilson68*1) Putting SNC's own interests above those of the country as a whole. This might be understandable, but it's also perfectly reasonable for people to complain about this and dislike them for it.2) Might actually not even been in SNC's own best interests because it annoys some people and blows a chance to earn goodwill.
Here's an idea, why don't you go start your own company and run it with your ethical openness? See how far you get.
Since it's harder (in principle), this means balanced, honest and open releases should be avoided, and it's not something reasonable to ask for? Shouldn't goals be loftier? At least I would like to be a part of a world that aims towards that, not tergiversation for short-term profit.
By the way, if this treatment of information is a strategic diversion to avoid a short-term circumstance, I would be fine with it, as long as it eventually gets released in a reasonable timeframe. But I don't think this is the case - as hasn't been in the past.
I think some people are still losing focus on what this test was all about. It was not a test of the landing gear, it was a test of the ETA's ability to fly and approach.If the video was released, the crashy part would be the only segment shown in the mass media and Joe Public would be saying "Ooopsee! That went really badly!"That reaction would be wrong, per the milestones of what this flight was actually about.As space flight fans (which the vast majority of us are here, as we're a space flight specific site), we all desperately want to see commercial crew be successful, regardless of what vehicle ends up being selected. If not seeing that video released helps that goal, by nature of it removing a negative image of what is a good program, then that's more than fine by me.
Sorry, but if you have the video, and I suspect you do, then it's your job as a journalist to publish. I'll even join L2 if you put it there as that's worth paying for.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 11/08/2013 01:54 amI think some people are still losing focus on what this test was all about. It was not a test of the landing gear, it was a test of the ETA's ability to fly and approach.If the video was released, the crashy part would be the only segment shown in the mass media and Joe Public would be saying "Ooopsee! That went really badly!"That reaction would be wrong, per the milestones of what this flight was actually about.As space flight fans (which the vast majority of us are here, as we're a space flight specific site), we all desperately want to see commercial crew be successful, regardless of what vehicle ends up being selected. If not seeing that video released helps that goal, by nature of it removing a negative image of what is a good program, then that's more than fine by me.Sorry, but if you have the video, and I suspect you do, then it's your job as a journalist to publish. I'll even join L2 if you put it there as that's worth paying for.
I don't like the implication that private companies working on NASA programs don't have to follow national space policy.
As this appears to be a ranting and raving thread, I'll add my five cents worth:this childish 'But I want, want, want to see the video, I am deprived of my rights as taxpayer'.Get a life guys! ;D
Quote from: spectre9 on 11/08/2013 05:44 amI don't like the implication that private companies working on NASA programs don't have to follow national space policy.It's pretty amazing to see how people think that information is flowing freely just because they get to see a video of something.
Quote from: Lars_J on 11/08/2013 06:10 amQuote from: spectre9 on 11/08/2013 05:44 amI don't like the implication that private companies working on NASA programs don't have to follow national space policy.It's pretty amazing to see how people think that information is flowing freely just because they get to see a video of something.So what's the difference between "NASA space policy" and "United States space policy". Does it apply to NASA or does it apply to all spaceflight?Is it simply a recommendation when they say "Space operations should be conducted in ways that emphasize openness and transparency..." and really it should have "but only if it's good, never show the bad" tagged on?I'm not ranting and raving. I'm discussing real policy of the U.S. government here.
... but in my opinion they're going against the national space policy by withholding the full footage.
[So what's the difference between "NASA space policy" and "United States space policy". Does it apply to NASA or does it apply to all spaceflight?.
national space policy by withholding the full footage.
Now I'm never going to be one of the top reporters for space flight news and I'm certainly not going to win any awards for writing style
Principles aren't in a handbook or a manual, most of them come from experience, personal attitude and how you were trained. A lot of writers will tell you their first editor was pretty much their teacher, with my first editor being an old school, hard nosed editor (mass media too), who drummed it into my head on the importance of responsibility. "Loose talk costs lives" was his favorite saying.
Also, the rocket failures (e.g. Delta II and III) happened during live broadcasts of their launches. We would still all get to see a F9 explode as F9 launches are also broadcast live. Nothing has changed.
Considering the number of mobile phones that can record video today, it is strange that nothing, not even a photo after the anomaly, has surfaced on YouTube.
Quote from: spectre9 on 11/08/2013 07:42 am... but in my opinion they're going against the national space policy by withholding the full footage.and that would be the national space policy of which country? Spectre9-land?
Quote from: JAC on 11/08/2013 07:05 pmConsidering the number of mobile phones that can record video today, it is strange that nothing, not even a photo after the anomaly, has surfaced on YouTube.Too far away from viewing areas
Quote from: Jim on 11/08/2013 09:31 pmQuote from: JAC on 11/08/2013 07:05 pmConsidering the number of mobile phones that can record video today, it is strange that nothing, not even a photo after the anomaly, has surfaced on YouTube.Too far away from viewing areas They had pretty good video of the approach. Was that taken by remote cameras, or perhaps something with a long lens ? I assume only SNC, NASA, and a few Air Force personnel were close enough to view the test.
Quote from: Garrett on 11/07/2013 08:09 amAlso, the rocket failures (e.g. Delta II and III) happened during live broadcasts of their launches. We would still all get to see a F9 explode as F9 launches are also broadcast live. Nothing has changed. Do you really believe that? SpaceX controls its webcasts with a delayed feed, and has repeatedly pushed the video cutoff button when failures have occurred, most recently during CRS-2. (To his credit, in that instance Elon Musk himself filled the void with informative tweets while his own PR department continued for a time to keep the media in the dark.)If a Falcon 9 "explodes", you won't see it from SpaceX. It didn't show its Falcon 1 explosion(s).But this is the new reality, I suppose. Whatever it is, it does not match the long proud historic openness standards of the U.S. national civil space program. Most of you seem willing to accept this new era of information throttling, which to me either smells like, or hints at a future possibility of, propaganda. I am not. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Garrett on 11/07/2013 08:09 amAlso, the rocket failures (e.g. Delta II and III) happened during live broadcasts of their launches. We would still all get to see a F9 explode as F9 launches are also broadcast live. Nothing has changed. Do you really believe that?
SpaceX controls its webcasts with a delayed feed, and has repeatedly pushed the video cutoff button when failures have occurred, most recently during CRS-2.
If a Falcon 9 "explodes", you won't see it from SpaceX. It didn't show its Falcon 1 explosion(s).
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/08/2013 09:15 pmQuote from: Garrett on 11/07/2013 08:09 amAlso, the rocket failures (e.g. Delta II and III) happened during live broadcasts of their launches. We would still all get to see a F9 explode as F9 launches are also broadcast live. Nothing has changed. Do you really believe that? Yes.QuoteSpaceX controls its webcasts with a delayed feed, and has repeatedly pushed the video cutoff button when failures have occurred, most recently during CRS-2. CRS-2 is irrelevant to my point (live broadcast during launch). CRS-2 had issues with Dragon on orbit. QuoteIf a Falcon 9 "explodes", you won't see it from SpaceX. It didn't show its Falcon 1 explosion(s).A F9 launch for a CRS or CCiCap mission will be broadcast using government (NASA, Air Force) contracted equipment. If an anomaly were to occur during the launch phase (i.e. before tracking cams lose sight of rocket), then SpaceX can drop their webcast if they wish, but NASA TV will still be in a positon to continue to broadcast.
QuoteIf a Falcon 9 "explodes", you won't see it from SpaceX. It didn't show its Falcon 1 explosion(s).A F9 launch for a CRS or CCiCap mission will be broadcast using government (NASA, Air Force) contracted equipment. If an anomaly were to occur during the launch phase (i.e. before tracking cams lose sight of rocket), then SpaceX can drop their webcast if they wish, but NASA TV will still be in a positon to continue to broadcast.
Quote from: Garrett on 11/09/2013 09:44 pmQuoteIf a Falcon 9 "explodes", you won't see it from SpaceX. It didn't show its Falcon 1 explosion(s).A F9 launch for a CRS or CCiCap mission will be broadcast using government (NASA, Air Force) contracted equipment. If an anomaly were to occur during the launch phase (i.e. before tracking cams lose sight of rocket), then SpaceX can drop their webcast if they wish, but NASA TV will still be in a positon to continue to broadcast.That's a really odd complaint (who are you quoting?) . . .
But this is the new reality, I suppose. Whatever it is, it does not match the long proud historic openness standards of the U.S. national civil space program. Most of you seem willing to accept this new era of information throttling, which to me either smells like, or hints at a future possibility of, propaganda. I am not. - Ed Kyle
That would imply this will never happen again, but we know it will, and probably with more serious incidents.IMHO, if you take *any* government money for a test and it fails, you show that failure, period. If you don't want to show it, don't take the money. You can't take public money and expect no public accountability.
That is nonsense, simonbp.Nowhere in SNC's contract is it written that they have to release all video of all tests. And if they did, you would have companies less willing to put "skin in the game." We know the result of the test. The landing gear failed and the vehicle was significantly damaged.
It's a trade-off. If you want more video of failures, it's going to cost more taxpayer dollars. So what do you prefer, failure video or a tax increase?
You can't take public money and expect no public accountability.
This is not complete nonsense. Other branches of the government write disclosure requirements into their contracts.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/11/2013 07:01 pmThat is nonsense, simonbp.Nowhere in SNC's contract is it written that they have to release all video of all tests. And if they did, you would have companies less willing to put "skin in the game." We know the result of the test. The landing gear failed and the vehicle was significantly damaged.This is not complete nonsense. Other branches of the government write disclosure requirements into their contracts. See, for example, http://publicaccess.nih.gov, which states "The NIH Public Access Policy ensures the public has access to the published results of NIH funded research." I suspect that if NASA had a similar clause in their contract, then at least the failure report would need to be public.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 11/11/2013 07:58 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 11/11/2013 07:01 pmThat is nonsense, simonbp.Nowhere in SNC's contract is it written that they have to release all video of all tests. And if they did, you would have companies less willing to put "skin in the game." We know the result of the test. The landing gear failed and the vehicle was significantly damaged.This is not complete nonsense. Other branches of the government write disclosure requirements into their contracts. See, for example, http://publicaccess.nih.gov, which states "The NIH Public Access Policy ensures the public has access to the published results of NIH funded research." I suspect that if NASA had a similar clause in their contract, then at least the failure report would need to be public.I'm not sure if you understand the context of the NIH requirements you're referring to. That has to do with the publication of funded research results (i.e. much of the reason for the funding) in journals which weren't publicly accessible.
If a grad student on an NIH grant drops a test tube of an expensive catalyst while working on an experiment, they aren't required to post a video of the test tube breaking to youtube.
You keep using that word - failure - I don't think you know what it means.They weren't testing the landing gear.
Of course the landing gear was part of the test. The original plan was to fly with a closer-to flight gear, and they did not for various reasons. But elements of the final one (presumably the doors) were there. It was certainly part of the overall test.
Quote from: QuantumG on 11/11/2013 11:36 pmYou keep using that word - failure - I don't think you know what it means.They weren't testing the landing gear.Of course the landing gear was part of the test.
Call it personal opinion - or logic, depending on what you want. If the landing was not a part of the test criteria, then the total DC drop test was a 100% success. If the test included aspects of the landing, then the total test was not a 100% success. It's pretty simple as that, isn't it?Perhaps I missed the part where Chris claimed the former (100%) - but I'm not sure that's a claim that SNC would even back.
I think some people are still losing focus on what this test was all about. It was not a test of the landing gear, it was a test of the ETA's ability to fly and approach.
... Today, Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) performed its first free-flight approach-and-landing test of the Dream Chaser® spacecraft. ...
SNC actually did show their failure. You can clearly see the wheel did not deploy in their video.
Exactly. There has been no secrecy.
This has been a very depressing thread to read. Mods, please stop the madness!
Pictures might be helpful. I guess I missed that post, I did not see it in your two post-incident articles.I respect your journalism, Chris, but I'm just going after what SnC themselves say in their press release: http://www.sncspace.com/press_more_info.php?id=369Quote... Today, Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) performed its first free-flight approach-and-landing test of the Dream Chaser® spacecraft. ...